delete_agent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive nature (permanent, cannot be undone) and a key constraint (system agents cannot be deleted). It could mention auth needs or confirmation steps but is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences front-load essential information: purpose, permanence, and restriction. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: destructive action, irreversibility, and a notable exception. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters well-described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no explanation of agentId format or workspaceId resolution), so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as permanently deleting an agent, specifying the action ('delete'), the resource ('agent'), and adds critical context about permanence and system agent exclusion, distinguishing it from siblings like create_agent or list_agents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: it is for permanent deletion and cannot be undone, and explicitly states that system agents cannot be deleted. While it does not explicitly contrast with other deletion tools, the guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.